[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from IRTP Part B

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the chat transcript from today's IRTP Part B WG meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

=====================

On 08/02/11 17:07, "Marika Konings" 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

  Marika Konings:IRTP Part B WG Meeting - 8 February 2011
  James Bladel:Can anyone read that baby-blue text in the document window?
  Barbara Steele-RySG:I am having difficulty
  Barbara Steele-RySG:as well
  James Bladel::)
  James Bladel:thank you.
  Michele 
Neylon:http://blog.films.ie/2011/02/the-iron-lady---streep-to-play-thatcher.html
  James Bladel:How was florida?
  Michele Neylon:http://www.finegael2011.com/twitter/index.asp
  James Bladel:Yeah, but Obama was good at it.
  Michele Neylon:James - exactly
  Berry Cobb:Thx Michele.  You can drive from here on out.
  Barbara Steele-RySG:Paul, that is the point that I was trying to get to.
  Berry Cobb:Again, the restore procedure already exists.  All we are adding is 
a more immediate framework by which the procedure is invoked.
  Berry Cobb:and if it is invoked, it should be documented.
  Berry Cobb:Does anyone know who the Dispute Resolution Providers are for TDRP?
  Michele Neylon:Berry - there aren't any
  Michele Neylon:Berry - it's not arbitration afaik
  James Bladel:It's the registry deciding between two disputing registrars.
  Michele Neylon:James - that's what I thought
  Michele Neylon:(I've never used it)
  Barbara Steele-RySG:registry operators are the first level dispute resolution 
providers and icann has named several other entities that are the second level 
dispute resolution providers
  Rob Golding (Othello):Where there is "co-operatioN" between registrars it's 
(reasonably) straightforward - it's where the gaining registrar is unresponsive 
or disagrees with the "return" on teh domain. Personally I like the more 
simplified approach, but still feel that the "urgent return" aspect needs to 
happen whilst the TDRP goes on.
  Berry Cobb:@ Michele, TDRP section 1.3 - "DRP must be an independent and 
neutral 3rd party....ICANN shall have the authority to accredit one or more 
independent & neutral DRPs"  This suggest to me that the DRP is an entity other 
than a Registry.  And it is only Level2 where a DRP was brought in.
  Michele Neylon:Berry - see Barbara's reply above
  Barbara Steele-RySG:Second level providers:  Asian Domain Name Dispute 
Resolution Centre [ADNDRC] (approved effective 28 February 2002). The National 
Arbitration Forum [NAF] (approved effective 23 December 1999). Click here to 
see its supplemental rules.
  Paul Diaz:Given how long TDRP's typically take to work through the process, 
"appeals" are rarely pursued.  FWIW, I don't think Network Solutions has ever 
used one of the DRPs following a TDRP
  Berry Cobb:Think she said 8?
  Berry Cobb:ah 2
  James Bladel:quarter billion?
  Simonetta Batteiger:is there a better dispute resolution process to tie this 
to?
  Michele Neylon:love the star wars reference
  James Bladel:Can I respond to Marika's question?
  Simonetta Batteiger:go ahead James
  Paul Diaz:making it part of a Consensus Policy also gives Compliance 
something to enforce against, i.e. non-responsive registrars will be penalized
  Michele Neylon:Paul D  - if compliance have teeth
  Berry Cobb:While I like the 24 hour notion.....that is a hugh service 
delivery committment to sign up for.  If I were a Ry, I would probably have 
issue with this without some sort of cost recovery.  That is why, 3 business 
days seemed fair.   All SLAs for IRTP only involve 5 Calendar days to monitor 
the email boxes.  24 hours is a hugh leap.
  Barbara Steele-RySG:Exactly Michele.  Without consequences or sanctions 
speciifically spelled out in the concensus policy, there really is no teeth 
short of termination of the registrar's accreditation for non-compliance
  Michele Neylon:24 hours for a reply or for action?
  Paul Diaz:@Michele - try, but going after such "bad apples" will be be easier 
(lower hanging fruit) hence more likely Compliance action
  James Bladel:Compliance could test the emergency contact periodically.
  Paul Diaz:@Marika - will this chat dialogue be included in the transcript 
and/or WG record?
  Rob Golding (Othello):@james - i suggested that to icann in brussels - that 
they check the contacts actually work :)
  Marika Konings:I'll forward the chat transcript to the mailing list following 
this call
  Berry Cobb:no more 2nd hour ETRP calls.
  Paul Diaz:thanks, Marika.  lot's of good thoughts, just wanted to make sure 
it wasn't lost
  Berry Cobb:I recommend we use the 2nd hour for IRTP
  Berry Cobb:scratch that then.....
  Barbara Steele-RySG:I can't stay on either
  James Bladel:music?
  Marika Konings:Sorry got disconnected
  Paul Diaz:I cannot today, but will try in future weeks if needed
  Matt Serlin:i can not stay either
  Marika Konings:am dialing back in
  Marika Konings:don't hang up yet....
  Marika Konings:am back
  James Bladel:Need to drop.  Thanks everyone!
  Rob Golding (Othello):until next week - see youon teh mailing lists :)